User talk:OvBacon
Text removal Please note that with any significant or large-scale removal of text from an article it is usually a good idea to post a note on the talk page explaining what you did and/or provide a copy of what was removed, in case others wish to discuss the issue.--31dot 09:50, January 14, 2011 (UTC) :While it's your choice to remove the welcome message, talk page posts are archived, not deleted. - 16:14, January 14, 2011 (UTC) :: sorry for the removal of the comment, it was a mistake and not intended as any kind of discontent.--OvBacon 20:23, January 15, 2011 (UTC) Ekosians On the page of the Ekosians there is a reference to: Marshal, showing a photo of an Akosian wearing the uniform of the Reichsführer-SS (which many people compare to the rank of field marshal). The problem with this reference, is that its not correct but is mainly made due to the lack of real comparison. The rank, as worn the Ekosian, was specific to the Nazi SS paramilitary group and was brought to a high when Heinrich Himmler held it. As shown it was in practice the "vice" Führer, which needlessly to say does not translate to any true excising rank. The most accurate comparisons could be the second in command behind Attila the Hun. I've noticed many mistakes in the ranking and explanations and found that most of the text is just a cut and paste from Wikipedia (which is not the best reference point to use). --OvBacon 16:56, January 14, 2011 (UTC) ---- Apologies for some strange edits I did in the last few min., my computer seemed to make some weird whoop ti doops and logged in and out... and kaboom, it showed as some rapid changes... sorry for that. --OvBacon 01:08, January 15, 2011 (UTC) Something I know you weren't I was just saying about there reputation in the world at the time. You don't have to worry about hurting my feelings, which you didn't.--AnyGuy 02:56, January 15, 2011 (UTC) I agree with you... but remember that Mem. Alpha is about what was shown in Star Trek (and maybe some background to go with it), and not about "real" history. Images Please take a moment to read the image use policy. All images uploaded to MA need a proper image licensing template as well as citations. Images without an image licensing template or citation will be removed from articles and are subject to deletion. If you have any questions, feel free to ask. - 18:58, January 16, 2011 (UTC) : Archdu3, could you do me a favor and look at File:ST CCG Premiere giftset all.jpg to see if I put the licensing in the correct spot... I appreciate the help your giving me with figuring out how to navigate through Mem. Alpha's editing rules and regulations.--OvBacon 20:51, January 16, 2011 (UTC) That's the correct location, so don't worry about that. :) I made some changes based on the other image used on the CCG page. Beyond categorization and an image description, the only real thing that needed to be done was to add a rationale, since we require one for the fairuse template. Short of a particular question, all I can say is to just take a look at a similar image and base what template you use on that, since that works most of time. - 21:18, January 16, 2011 (UTC) : Thanx so much. I really appreciate the time you put in to helping others out to do this right. O yes, how do I put a banner at the top of my talk page that I would like "conversations" to stay in one place... like you have. --OvBacon 21:20, January 16, 2011 (UTC) You can create one like I did with a subpage (IE: User:Archduk3/Talk), or you can use the standard one: . Any page can be called as a template by putting the page name inside the bracket...things...what-ever-they're-called ( ). - 21:31, January 16, 2011 (UTC) Beginner mistakes Sorry for the many I'm making and probably the many to come... bare with me please...;) I will try to keep them at a minimum. :A few things for your information: :*''Always'' sign talk pages. Also, you retain your indentation for the entire conversation instead of adding one indent per reply. For the rational and what not, see . :*Images need categories! For people, generally, this is done by species, so the category would be Category:Memory Alpha images (). If there isn't a category for the species, there's an "individuals" one for unnamed species and so forth. I would also recommend that you turn on the "Disable Category Select" option in your preferences (upper right corner of the screen) under the "Editing" tab. This will remove the category box when editing and allow you to see the actual wiki code for the categories. At the very least, you should try it out. :*Images shouldn't contain the name of the episode as part of the file name. This has something to do with the POV, though for the life of me I can't remember the actual rational behind it. I'm sure it's on the POV page somewhere though, and if not, blame someone who isn't me for giving you such bad information. ;) :That's a lot to take in at once, I know, but you're editing more than the average newbie. The faster you get up to speed, the better for all of us. - 08:16, January 19, 2011 (UTC) Thanks again Archduk3, for the help your providing.--OvBacon 16:04, January 19, 2011 (UTC) Re Deletion I deleted the original card you uploaded, since you uploaded the new one. Thanks for doing that. :) To answer your question about suggesting deletion, you can put to tag an image. You should also put a little blurb at Memory Alpha:Files for deletion explaining the reason. For articles you can put or on the relevant page, and then afterwards use the link within the tag to create the discussion explaining your reasoning. For a noncontroversial deletion of an article(such as vandalism or gibberish) you can put , which does not usually require any more explanation. Hope this helps you.--31dot 00:48, January 26, 2011 (UTC) :Absolutely. Thanx for the explanation.--OvBacon 00:53, January 26, 2011 (UTC) You're welcome. If you are interested, you can review the deletion policy, but by no means it is necessary. :) --31dot 00:57, January 26, 2011 (UTC) Starbase 11 images Are these from the remastered versions of the episode(s), or the original versions? If they are from the remastered ones, please add "remastered image" to the images immediately above the license. Thanks. -- sulfur 20:49, March 23, 2011 (UTC) : Yes they are, I will add it right now.--OvBacon 21:32, March 23, 2011 (UTC) Note. Update. Please use or instead. -- sulfur (talk) 10:24, March 25, 2015 (UTC) New version of files I uploaded new versions of images that are sharper/clearer. I'm aware that some have a file size that could be less but it seems to defeat the purpose to upload another file that is reduced (since the all the previous versions are still on the site). I have found a way to reduce the sizes but still maintain good sharp images. --"Ad astra per aspera" 19:09, March 27, 2011 (UTC) OST I'm assuming that OST is short for Original Star Trek, so it should be pointed out that MA only uses the TOS abbreviation for consistency, with a "R" or "-R" added for remastered episodes. Regardless, image titles shouldn't have series or episode information in them unless necessary, as the image categories already cover that in a much easier to search format. Also, images from a remastered episode should have the new "remastered image" template added if there's no corresponding original image, though the need to do that on images without a "new" effect is debatable. - 23:21, March 27, 2011 (UTC) :Ah, good to know. As with the remastered, there are a lot of images in there that are already from the remastered episodes but don't have that in, should I just add that when uploading a better screenshot? --"Ad astra per aspera" 23:25, March 27, 2011 (UTC) I'm not sure really. Sulfur came up with that template, so he would have a better idea what he was thinking when he made it. - 23:42, March 27, 2011 (UTC) :What is the most common used practice when the image doesn't show "new" effect?--"Ad astra per aspera" 23:44, March 27, 2011 (UTC) Since the template is less then a week old, I'm not sure if there really is a common practice yet, since I don't know if sulfur went through every single TOS image and added the template where it "should" be. - 23:56, March 27, 2011 (UTC) : Ahhh ok, a week old, that explains a lot...:) Thanxs for filling me in on the details. --"Ad astra per aspera" 00:00, March 28, 2011 (UTC) ::I've not been through all of the images as yet -- haven't had time. Doubt that anyone ever will have time! If you see an image that is definitely from the remastered TOS, then add in the template, unless is has the template already on it. That's the intent of the template. -- sulfur 02:28, March 28, 2011 (UTC) Thanx so much for pitching in on this question sulfur, I'll keep an eye out for images (I get on those obsessive compulsive trips of fixing graphics)--"Ad astra per aspera" 04:52, March 28, 2011 (UTC) ::FYI, use "remastered image|TOS" instead of the bare template. The series is not important now, but if we ever use images from the TNG remastered reel that was released, we'll want to identify one from the other. Just FYI. - sulfur 18:09, March 28, 2011 (UTC) Absolutely, I will correct them...Let me know if there is anything I can help with. ::This list is everything where the category has been added, but the template has not yet been. I've not had a chance to sit down and run through them, but should (if all goes well) have time later tonight to zip through that listing. The really important thing to get out of this is the categorization of remastered images as... well... remastered images! :) -- sulfur 18:35, March 28, 2011 (UTC) I just looked at that list and wrote on your Talk page... I have time to go through it now if you'd like me to?--"Ad astra per aspera" 18:38, March 28, 2011 (UTC) So... just for clarification... do the images just need the new "remastered" template or do they need the template and the category?--"Ad astra per aspera" 18:42, March 28, 2011 (UTC) ::Feel free to start on that list if you'd like. Things on that list have the category, but not the template. They should (at the end of the day) have the template but not the category (it's automagically assigned by the relevant templates). If you feel like working through other images first, you're welcome to do that too. -- sulfur 18:55, March 28, 2011 (UTC) I'll start on the list, should I remove them from the list when I added the template? And another question.. If I add a "corresponding" template to an image do I have to put in the TOS remastered category in then, or does the template do that. I noticed that the template does not have "|TOS" in it. ::"Corresponding original" takes care of the category, and would need some hefty reworking to handle multiple series. We'll cover that hurdle when we get there. That will be easier to do with a bot than this step (especially since a lot seem to be missing the category at the moment). -- sulfur 20:56, March 28, 2011 (UTC) Enterprise bridge 2265.jpg Please note that I have reverted your edit to File:Enterprise bridge 2265.jpg again, as that shot is not from the remastered version. -Angry Future Romulan 20:32, March 28, 2011 (UTC) :Thanx for catching that... although you forgot to take out the "Category:Memory Alpha images (TOS remastered)". That was the reason I put in the new remastered template.--"Ad astra per aspera" 20:36, March 28, 2011 (UTC) Toasting Just for the record. I didn't move the "toast" image back to the top of the Toast page, so I am not going to take the blame/credit or responsibility for that move - needless to say, I support it though. Picard(o) 13:03, May 28, 2011 (UTC) :Please, do not start a discussion in two places just to get your point across. You'll get a reply where and when its appropriate. -- OvBacon(Talk) 16:03, May 28, 2011 (UTC) Red links Please don't remove red links that could become valid articles. Both pen pals and the outback were mentioned on-screen.–Cleanse ( talk | ) 23:43, June 9, 2011 (UTC) : ahh, sorry, they seemed unused references... didn't know that that was a reason to have them as such.-- OvBacon(Talk) 00:18, June 10, 2011 (UTC) Well, most articles started as red links somewhere. The fact that they're linked will put them on Wanted Pages, eventually leading to their creation. :-) –Cleanse ( talk | ) 01:38, June 10, 2011 (UTC) :As with many things....once you really think about it it makes sense, I just didn't do that...;)-- OvBacon(Talk) 01:42, June 10, 2011 (UTC) Input requested Further input is requested here. Thanks. - 00:02, June 10, 2011 (UTC) Please explain your deletion OvBacon, I'd like to know why you deleted my brief entry about Benjamin Sisko's unique position in Star Trek from the Deep Space Nine page. I (kind of) understand why you deleted it from the Benjamin Sisko page, since you provided an explanation. On the DS9 page, however, the change was made without explanation. It fits perfectly in that particular paragraph: like other items in the paragraph, it is a unique change from the format of other Trek shows. The military ranks of characters, especially the commanding officer, can be considered part of the format of Trek, just like narrative, setting, and other elements. I believe it is interesting enough for a one-sentence comment. Perhaps you don't find it interesting, but then it becomes just a matter of personal taste--and regardless of taste, the information is appropriate, accurate, and brief. I'm not going to quibble about italics/plain text formatting changes, but I will restore the sentence. --BlueResistance, 21:56, June 20, 2011 (UTC) : To ask for an explanation but in the mean time restoring something seems a little strange to me... Its better to first debate before going back to something that might be in dispute. But your paragraph: The show also broke with tradition - and with future Trek series - by featuring a commanding officer at the rank of commander, rather than , for nearly three years. doesn't make mutch sense to me... There have been multiple times that a commander has been a commanding officer in the Star Trek universe, so that bit of info seems to be incorrect. At the same time I have some trouble understanding the bit about future Trek series, since its a bit hard to predict what will happen in the future. But the paragraph that you wrote in itself does not seem to add any information that isn't already available within the article and articles about the other shows. I am going to revert it back once more and start a discussion on the Talk page of DS9 -- OvBacon(Talk) 22:39, June 20, 2011 (UTC) ::Okay, my text should have been tightened up and clarified. 1) Obviously non-captains have temporarily taken control of ships/facilities on every show. I was attempting to point to Sisko as the only star/commanding officer of his or her particular show to not be a captain for an extended period during the run of his/her show--comparing him only to Kirk, Picard, Janeway, and Archer. 2) Again, clarification--only the two shows that have so far followed Deep Space Nine. 3) I didn't write a paragraph; I wrote only one sentence, which can hardly be considered a burden. More importantly, Sisko's ranks at different times are available elsewhere, as you say, but nowhere on the Wiki is the comparison with other COs/show stars made explicit. If you did a survey of this Wiki, I am sure you would find many instances of information available in a completely implicit form that is also made explicit somewhere. I propose the following: "The show also broke with tradition - and with the two Trek series that followed it - by featuring a commanding officer as the star of the show at the rank of commander, rather than , for a significant portion of its run." Would this be satisfactory? I will also ask 31dot for comment. --BlueResistance, 21:35, June 21, 2011 (UTC) :I find your "new" text way better but I would suggest to always refer to the series as Star Trek and not just Trek. Of course I know that it wasn't technically a whole "paragraph", but since were not debating the English language I used in trying to explain something on a talk page, I do not see the relevance of that statement. As you might have seen, I started the discussion on the talk page of DS9 as not to have it here. So please put your comments about your suggested changes there and not here. -- OvBacon(Talk) 21:55, June 21, 2011 (UTC) Echo Papa The image you uploaded for the Echo Papa 607 should be uploaded as a separate image, since we try to get images of objects without others things in the shot. - 00:04, July 12, 2011 (UTC) :Will do, Thanks for letting me know. -- OvBacon(Talk) 00:08, July 12, 2011 (UTC) :Just as a heads up, I uploaded a different non firing image to it but it doesn't show and in the thumb it looks as if I re-upped the firing one... this is not the case. -- OvBacon(Talk) 00:14, July 12, 2011 (UTC) :Archduk3, can you render some assistance in this strange image matter? -- OvBacon(Talk) 00:18, July 12, 2011 (UTC) Sorry, offline there for a bit. I'm not seeing the problem with the image, so it's most likely the wait and see if it has cleared up by tomorrow problem. - 01:50, July 12, 2011 (UTC) :No worries, I don't expect you to be available 24/7. Must be just regular wiki image strangeness...;) -- OvBacon(Talk) 01:56, July 12, 2011 (UTC) "Inter Arma..." FA Nomination Hello OvBacon! I was hoping you might be able to spare a few minutes to read through and perhaps consider voting for it as an FA? Regardless, any comments you may have on the article would be greatly appreciated. Thank you! :) --| TrekFan Open a channel 20:38, August 26, 2011 (UTC) Remastered images So we are marking TNG images from the blu-ray release with the template, as opposed to the one, which categorizes them differently, even if there isn't anything different or "remastered" in the shot itself. This lets us keep track of how many images have been "updated" to the clearer release. - 04:08, December 4, 2016 (UTC) : Any specific place or way I need to add this to the images? OvBacon(Talk) 06:15, December 4, 2016 (UTC) In the citation. The remastered template replaces the original one, so instead of "Something something something. ( )", you would write: "Something something something. ( )". - 06:28, December 4, 2016 (UTC) :Ahhh, thanks. I will do so. Sorry for any inconvenience I might have caused by not altering this OvBacon(Talk) 06:29, December 4, 2016 (UTC) Red links Hey. Red links are unwritten articles. Please don't remove them just because they are red. Thanks. Tom (talk) 01:11, December 15, 2016 (UTC) : Shouldn't red links be "useful" and if they do not appear useful be removed and/or replaced by already existing pages (as I am about to do to the page you are referring to). But as also to your point I will "add" them as I go and not remove them first OvBacon(Talk) 01:22, December 15, 2016 (UTC) Sure but sometimes we don't have an article for this topic and by simply removing red links we're not building the web. When you think a red link is covered by an already existing article, sure go ahead and replace the link. But have in mind that another great article could be written about this "unwritten topic" which might be linked from several other articles as well. Tom (talk) 01:29, December 15, 2016 (UTC) :I'll keep it in mind OvBacon(Talk) 01:33, December 15, 2016 (UTC) Discovery ranks Great Discovery rank insignia. If you take a closer look at Adm. Cornwell's insignia, you'll see that hers is slightly different. The topmost laurel leaf on each side of the arrowhead is black instead of gold. Probably Vice Admiral. :I'll take a close look and add it OvBacon(Talk) 15:18, October 11, 2017 (UTC) ::"The War Without, The War Within" had a new insignia with 2 black leaves on each side. Sig file FYI, I've moved your signature template to your user space into: User:OvBacon/sig This is because a) we don't keep user signatures in the public template space and b) your userspace is your domain, and while people can easily edit items in template space, they cannot always edit in user space (that and it's way more obvious to other users that they're editing it). Thanks for your understanding. -- sulfur (talk) 23:44, October 11, 2017 (UTC) : No problem and sorry for making you do extra work... different wiki's different rules. 00:02, October 12, 2017 (UTC) Removing text Hi OvBacon. When removing significant amounts of text from an article please leave a copy on the talk page. This makes any discussion easier to follow, and also serves as an archive to make it easier for later editors. Thanks!--Cleanse ( talk ) 07:06, November 2, 2017 (UTC) : I hear what you say but I am unsure why it matters since there is a history that can be checked and I did write a clear and long explanation when removing it and so this shows up in the history and can be looked at and compared which shows exactly what was removed and/or changed. 15:19, November 2, 2017 (UTC) Star Trek Picard Federation Ranks Hey, pal! Are you the designer of the new Picard Ranks (replacing the version I uploaded)? If so, good job, but don't forget to update the license in each picture...Pedronog (talk) 19:11, February 20, 2020 (UTC) : Hi Pedro, I hope you did not take me replacing your design as an insult. My intention was to create a more accurate representation of the ranks. I'll update the licenses later as I'm not really that worried about getting credit for the design (since the real designers are working for Star Trek). But in any case thanks for pointing it out. 19:17, February 20, 2020 (UTC) Of course I didn't take it as an insult! Well done! And I see you already extrapolated the rest of the rank system on your rank timeline, so I'm counting on you to update the page as we get to see more of it (I can warn you every time I spot one in case you miss it). Pedronog (talk) 10:19, February 23, 2020 (UTC) :Absolutely, let me know when you see a rank that is not up yet and I'll add it. Thanks in advance 16:31, February 23, 2020 (UTC)